Supreme Court refuses to hear group-home case

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Newport Beach’s request for a hearing on its group-home law, a move that will effectively force the city back into trial court to defend its ordinance.

Newport Beach submitted a petition to the Supreme Court in August, asking the justices to reverse a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that a municipal ordinance governing group homes could be challenged for discriminatory intent.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would not hear the case.

“We are still analyzing the court’s decision and its potential impact on our ordinance,” City Atty. Aaron Harp said. “Obviously, this is not the outcome we had hoped for, but from the beginning we knew review by the United States Supreme Court is rarely granted.”

Steven Polin, an attorney representing the group homes, said the high court’s refusal to hear the lawsuit will allow lower courts to issue a judgment based on the case’s merits.

“The ballgame is not over,” he said. “We’re back where we always thought we should be.”

In January 2008, the city adopted a law that placed strict limits on group homes. The homes had previously been operating freely in residential areas, which led to complaints from Newport Beach residents about traffic issues, cigarette smoke, loitering and noise.

The group homes contend that the motivation behind the ordinance was to make it nearly impossible to provide housing for recovering addicts.

The law effectively prohibited new group homes housing seven or more residents from opening in most residential areas and required existing group homes to complete the same permitting process required of new ones, including an extensive public review process, according to court documents.

The ordinance forced out many of the group homes because they could not qualify for permits.

Harp estimated that the city has spent roughly $4 million defending lawsuits from group-home operators since it implemented the law in 2008.

Several other Orange County cities have also wrestled with limiting rehab homes in recent years. Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach, which have each dealt with their own issues, contributed funding toward the cost of filing amicus briefs, which are written arguments submitted by independent organizations, to the Supreme Court. They joined in support of Newport Beach.

“If the Supreme Court would have given a ruling, it would have provided some legal precedent and feedback for communities that deal with this issue,” said Costa Mesa city spokesman Bill Lobdell.

Pacific Shores Properties, Yellowstone Recovery and Newport Coast Recovery first sued Newport in 2009. The organizations contend that the ordinance discriminates against recovering drug addicts and alcoholics, who are protected by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

The act prevents discrimination against people who are in a “protected class,” which courts have found includes recovering drug addicts and alcoholics, when they seek housing. Addicts and alcoholics in recovery are considered protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A U.S. District Court judge first ruled in 2010 that the nature of the ordinance was not discriminatory. The case was appealed by the group homes to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2013, a three-person panel of the appeals court ruled that the ordinance may have illegally discriminated against group homes for people in recovery based on disability.

However, other 9th Circuit judges maintained that the panel’s decision inappropriately allowed a neutral law that was fairly enforced to be challenged based on an accusation of ill intent.

The city agreed and appealed to the Supreme Court.

“This case is and has always been about a city’s right to enact non-discriminatory regulations to protect its residents from negative impacts associated with adjoining land uses,” Harp said. “We remain committed to protecting our residents’ quality of life and ensuring land uses are compatible and contribute positively to our community.”